As he headed to the Trump Grill for lunch, tourists and workers hailed him, congratulated him and urged him on as they lined up to take photos with their phones.

He posed with some women and looked back at a reporter to point at the women and boasted “Hispanics!” Afterward, he bragged: “They say ‘We love you, Mr. Trump. We’re from Mexico.’ ”

After he was seated, the Secret Service erected a temporary partition to shield him from other guests.

“Look,” he said, amused, “we put up a wall!”

Trump had "a meatball lunch he barely touched" — which rhymes, you know (you could make a song).

“I disagree with a lot of things I’ve watched in politics over the years, that’s why I’m running... And that may make me less popular with politicians. But I have to be honest. I didn’t get there by doing it the way a lot of these people do it.”

58 comments:

Couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a hit job or not. What is going to be interesting is the extent that Trump will be able to shape the debate by allocating and denying coverage of him based on how fair he views it. Apparently, a Buzzfeed reporter was denied access after the organization declared its opposition to him. Obama has been doing this for years, with little remark, except by Fox News, and Herself tries this, but doesn't have much to deny, since she rarely talks to the press unless she has been scripted, and they vetted to ask only softball questions. Trump on the other hand appears unscripted, and enjoys talking to the press, taking almost every opportunity to do so. So meeting with him has the potential to be newsworthy (while meeting with Hillary most often is not), and this is something of worth that can be withheld in trade for favorable coverage. Should be interesting.

I think it's an important point. Politicians have a very narrow window of correctness if they want to get elected every year. These people start out with zero dollars, and are dependent on donors to tell them what to say.

Trump doesn't have to bow and kiss the donors feet. But that doesn't mean one is bad, the other is good. It just means money equals votes.

When Ryan does anything, he's thinking of keeping the money coming. He has to hedge his support for Trump, because he is old school, and Trump is the rich kid. The rich kid may not get elected.

The more Trump talks, the more he sounds like a rich kid, who is bored with the limitations of just fighting the IRS every year. He want to own the IRS.

To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

They’re all agreed. The pundits, the “journalists,” the Democrats, the MSM and the craven media brown-nosers known as the GOP “leadership,” all are agreed that Trump is a Nazi racist. The pleasure and self-satisfaction oozing out of the Morning Joes the past few mornings has been a sight to see.

They are sure, sure mind you, that they have finally brought Trump to his knees. Which is their favored position for an apology – which they are demanding. They want an apology from Trump like an addict wants dope. But I don’t think hell is going to freeze over any time soon.

Now they are waiting for the polls to confirm their narrative. I think Hillary will get a bump in the polls because she just wrapped up the nomination. That will create a false sense of security among them and we’ll see some more preening and purring.

As for the GOP “leadership,” who in unison are calling their voters’ choice for POTUS a racist, they have been bending over for the MSM/Democrats so long they don’t even realize they’re being cornholed. They think they are handing the election to Hillary, which is the goal they must keep secret. And if Trump loses they will blame not themselves for their cowardice and collusion but Trump, who they have tried to sabotage every step of the way.

But during ALL this I have not seen from Trump’s accusers even one Trump quote cited on the subject of judge Curiel, just flat statements that Trump is a Nazi racist. Readers, do you find this as revealing as I do? I mean if Trump’s utterances on the subject of Curiel are so damaging I would think they would be gleefully quoting them word for word every chance they get. Ah, well, the reality show goes on …

Politicians and pretty much anyone who is going to be photographed in public should never be seen actually eating. The photos of you cramming food into your gaping mouth can never be attractive. You look stupid, awkward or worse. Then the press can take the worst looking one and plaster it all over the place.

So Trump, smartly, just poses with the food like he did with the infamous taco salad. Eat later when you can scarf it up and get sauce on your chin and no one will see. :-)

Politicians and pretty much anyone who is going to be photographed in public should never be seen actually eating. The photos of you cramming food into your gaping mouth can never be attractive. You look stupid, awkward or worse. Then the press can take the worst looking one and plaster it all over the place.

It's a sign of intelligence to see repeating patterns in things. Have we seen this before: Trump says something the piranha media finds reprehensible, they dive around the flesh they find fallen into the water, the flesh is not flesh at all but something their nasty little teeth can't penetrate, it gets up, does a dog-shiver to dry off, goes on its way, and its poll numbers go up.

And the piranhas-media sits (always sitting, these geniuses) perplexed.

And the piranhas-media sits (always sitting, these geniuses) perplexed.

It gave all the Republicans, the GOPe, a soapbox opportunity to say, "We are not racist." Faced with this unity, Donald Trump had to acknowledge that racism is bad and he was misunderstood.

The liberal game of using race to attack the Republican party may be about to end. The NYT signals this by running articles like this. Do they call Trump a racist? No! Instead they run a positive article about Trump. Pretend like you are Hillary and you read this. Donald Trump is portrayed as a strong man, as an authority, as a leader. He was just misunderstood! Meanwhile, the Republicans are united against racism. So the upshot is that Donald Trump is an independent man, an authoritative leader, a non-pussy who says uncomfortable truths, and his party is fully invested in the idea that racism is bad. So how do you continue the stupid shiloh game of attacking Republicans for their racism?

And credit the NYT for recognizing, either consciously or subconsciously, that Trump is playing the same game with working class whites that Obama and the Democrat party have been playing for decades. Either we divide into little balkanized enclaves of racial groups, or we stop doing that shit.

The next time Eric Holder or whoever says "my people," I predict a whole bunch of people will say a whole bunch of shit about it. Including white liberals. I think a lot of people sense that the grievances of white working class people--the feeling that they have been abandoned and left out--is a real thing. Honest liberals understand that we have had race riots in this country, and during the Obama administration. They have not said any shit about this to Obama. So if you have any honesty in your system at all, it becomes very hard to yell at Trump on the grounds that what he says might cause a riot. Yeah, no shit, we've already seen that movie!

Trump doesn't have to bow and kiss the donors feet. But that doesn't mean one is bad, the other is good. It just means money equals votes.

Been mulling this one over. I think we need to be a bit more explicit. “Votes” must necessarily mean votes in Congress by elected Congresspersons but not primary voters. Because Trump, who has probably set a record for the least money spent by a nominee for POTUS, has proven that money doesn’t buy the primary voters.

But yes, big donors buy favors from Congresspersons, that is well known by many and almost to the point of being considered(unofficially, of course) one of the perks of the job .. so … a perhaps more accurate statement might look like this: Big donor money to elected officials equals graft and corruption.

And I’m not sure what “one” represents, ditto “the other.”

When Ryan does anything, he's thinking of keeping the money coming. He has to hedge his support for Trump, because he is old school, and Trump is the rich kid. The rich kid may not get elected.

I had a certain amount of sympathy for Ryan but he went overboard for me when instead of saying he disagreed with Trump he decided to perform a bit of gratuitous virtue-signaling with phrases like “the definition of racism.”

And EVERY nominee “may not get elected,” there’s nothing unique in that. It adds to my disgust to know that several generations of Paul Ryans bowing and kissing the MSM’s biased ass have put our current Paul Ryan in his present discomfort and fear. And this is what passes for GOP leadership in Congress. It’s no wonder that Obama and the Democrats have outmaneuvered the GOP at almost every turn.

The more Trump talks, the more he sounds like a rich kid, who is bored with the limitations of just fighting the IRS every year. He want to own the IRS.

Nothing unique about the above slice of ad hominem; Trump attracts ad hominem like a magnet attracts iron filings. But the IRS thing … Trump claims he has been audited every year for several years. That seems excessive. Considering the IRS’s track record I suspect an ulterior motive, probably politically motivated. They call Trump a Nazi but have no problem with the IRS’s abuse of power. It seems that while we weren’t looking all our bureaucracies became politicized way beyond what’s normal in any non-bureaucratic work group or corporate culture.

The solution for this, which will make a lot of liberals yelp, is to stop seeking out this racial information about people. Quit dividing people into races on the census. Quit asking for the information. And if they don't stop, refuse to give it to them!

There is little or no need to divide our country into races. It's un-American. We were founded on an idea, not a race of people. People who want to divide us up, like Europe is divided, are wrong, completely wrong.

The non stop breathless news this morning has been a State visit by the Democratic Socialist Pope Sanders to the Community Organizer Obama who seeks to broker peace among two Marxist political parties. That peace should be about as permanent as the Peace to be brokered for Jerusalem will be.

grackle said...They’re all agreed. The pundits, the “journalists,” the Democrats, the MSM and the craven media brown-nosers known as the GOP “leadership,” all are agreed that Trump is a Nazi racist.

Fuck you, grackle. Movement Conservatism hasn't gone the way of accusing Trump of being a "Nazi." And Movement Conservatism has been in the forefront of criticizing the liberal mainstream media for far, far longer than Trump has called himself a Republican.

Trump critic (and Buckley in-law) Brent Bozell has made a career out of criticizing the mainstream media. On conservative principles. Something about which Trump knows little.

Movement Conservatism knows exactly what it is like, to be falsely accused of racism. And that one needs to be careful, to avoid giving any room to conservatism's enemies, to make such charges stick.

Movement Conservatism isn't "agreeing" with the Left. We want to beat the Left. In what I have said all along, going back to almost a year ago, was an eminently winnable election for Republicans. At least it should have been winnable.

So when Trump says something that really is -- objectively -- indefensible, like criticizing a federal judge on the basis that he has a Hispanic name and is (falsely claimed to be) "Mexican"; then yeah, Trump becomes useless or worse to conservatism and we'll push him away.

I fail to understand why Trump should get any credit for has lack of care and concern in choosing his words. That is what a President of the United States is supposed to do. I do think that there is an element of honesty and unguardedness with Trump in these matters; but it only reflects the state of Trump's mind which is ill-informed, unconsidered and sloppy.

I really don't see why you're so angry chuck. Trump is probably going to lose in the general. All the polling right now has Clinton up nationwide. The most recent three polls on realclearpolitics has her up by either 4 or 5. There was a poll recently that had her up by 11. But for some reason that poll isn't at the site. Dunno why.

So look. The republic will be saved. You can rejoice. Clinton will be president, we will have a 6-3 SCOTUS, we will lose our first and second amendment rights, and you can gloat and say, "Next time you'll listen to your betters or we will give you another Hillary!"

Maybe Dean Baquet is just enjoying the divisions of the Republican party.

Kind of like I'm enjoying the divisions in the NYT newsroom.

Average white liberal reader of the NYT: "Another positive article about Donald Trump! What the fuck, man!"

Dean Baquet: "He's my soul brother. I feel his pain as he looks across that courtroom and tries to see inside the mind of that cold and repressed white judge from Indiana. Or hispanic, whatever. Can we trust him? He's so different from us! I love you, brother! Keep rocking and upsetting that Republican party!"

Croix, your ideal will only happen if all groups agree to it. Much like war, it only takes one side declaring conflict to pull everyone into it.

Now sit for a moment and think hard. How possible is that? How likely is the left to give up identity politics, when it is the core of their being? How likely are these mass immigrants to spontaneously drop their group culture and identity?

Answer: Impossible. It's that simple.

Also Croix, read the Constitution. "Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If we were founded on an idea primarily, it would say "anyone who shares our ideals," now wouldn't it? You've been sold a revisionist history lie.

No sir. I have a deep understanding of the equal protection clause, something the Supreme Court, and liberals in general, have fucked up in a big way.

The Republican party--yes, that's right, the GOPe--has been very, very good on this issue. I applaud what our Speaker said. This is the best Speaker we have had in my lifetime. I am a huge fan of Paul Ryan.

"So when Trump says something that really is -- objectively -- indefensible, like criticizing a federal judge on the basis that he has a Hispanic name and is (falsely claimed to be) "Mexican""

We had a long thread yesterday explaining the La Raza connections, one of which the judge is a member of boycotting Trump, and the Judge's support for illegals, along with the ridiculous unsealing of personal information. But just like the left, you forgot all that to repeat your bullshit narrative. Good job, Chuck.

"I fail to understand why Trump should get any credit for has lack of care and concern in choosing his words. That is what a President of the United States is supposed to do."

And here I was thinking it was to Defend the nation and the citizens' interest. Stupid me. It's really about being nice to everybody as they eat our lunch, while know-nothings with political Alzheimer's spout the same drivel endlessly, with their heads firmly in the sand.

Where exactly does the equal protection clause say we are founded on an idea? Saying the law should be impartial to all citizens under its jurisdiction is the same as saying we have no cultural identity? As if our nation would continue as is no matter who mass immigrates?

What a stretch. Additionally, you just ignored my far more convincing quote from the founding fathers.

Telling. You have your conclusion first, then seek to validate it, ignoring evidence to the contrary rather than dealing with it.

"Trump critic (and Buckley in-law) Brent Bozell has made a career out of criticizing the mainstream media. "

This is all very well, as far as a political hobby goes, but its almost entirely useless in real life. "Model Railroader" probably has as much actual political influence as the "National Review". Hardly anyone cares what Brent Bozell says, no matter how correct he may be.

"Movement Conservatism knows exactly what it is like, to be falsely accused of racism. And that one needs to be careful, to avoid giving any room to conservatism's enemies, to make such charges stick."

This is part of the problem - what you really need to do is turn the tables, not avoid attacks. You fellows have spent the last 20 years being defensive, and IRL this has been an economic and social disaster. The "Movement Conservative" thinkers have thereby lost the people.

Speaking of Trump U now it turns out the Clinton's have their own university scandal and the funding is from the federal government and from none other than the State Department. No wonder the FBI is taking so much time. A veritable candy store of criminal targets, which ones does the FBI choose?

"The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal."

PC - politically correct. Strange phrase. Who invented it? What did it mean as originally used? Out here on the crater's rim, political means something related to a small enough collection to fit in many into a very small town, often no more than can be heard by all in an amphitheater. Which is necessary to bond people together in a way no media can, because it talks to your hindbrain directly, it’s hard to hate your cave mate. Which can't apply to your situation, because putting 10,000 of those together is something very different. The original intention doesn't scale unless coerced, which you do at every opportunity. Correct then must mean some form of coercion of a belief outside of the polis, though at times multiple towns might agree, they need not, and if they do not, they need not go to war. Where they permit their citizens to go knock at other groups gates and ask if they can be admitted, here’s what value and beliefs we will bring to you. What does it mean to apply the word correct to a divergent group of opinions and beliefs only held jointly by a few thousands of people? “These words do not mean what you think they mean.” See the princess bride. Grandma's favorite movie. In your history, a blink of any eye, Your poor race seems to go to war when groups larger than several thousand try to coerce their beliefs on others. In a day of Uber and phenomenal silicon servants it would appear the opportunity exists to go the opposite direction likely multiplying the ultimate measure of value of your species,– which is the integral of educated intellect over time divided by the cost of energy. If you scale down. You need coerce even fewer. Though coercion is baked into your hindbrain more strongly than sex, it descends from stealing everyone else’s food so you can take care of your own. So it needs be the first controlled first which can only happen with abundance, the wealth of old. We know you suffer from a lack of growth and employment. This change will keep twice your population fully employed for two centuries. Making you gods of your own world.

Perhaps votes and taxes could scale with the distance from the point of the issue or question. There’s a pothole, who should pay to fix it? Even if some larger service is competing to do it. It keeps the appropriate relationship between an employer and employee at every turn from smallest that build up into the largest. Same for creating a mental callus for practices you think abhorrent. Perhaps cannibalism, eating babies if they believe it helps them live longer and ritual sacrifice of their own, to say nothing of sex related anxieties. Democracy could be running towards the small and free, not the large and dictating. Which on our rim of the crater, we would call “Politically Correct” Which makes your pTb the true revolutionary, no wonder your parties and establishments hate him, between him and Sanders they might just succeed in burning it all to the ground by simply speaking the truth, and give you dirt worshipers a mulligan. You should know that on every other planet we’ve surveyed they were incapable of comprehending what a great gift this is, or seizing the opportunity to start over again. What is the role of robots in the new world you can make? They could enable increasingly large distance between groups that disagree with each other, at increasingly lower costs. Your JFK once promised to put a man on the Moon in a decade. Now you’ve decided to fix your bathrooms, including bathrooms on the Moon instead, in ten years. Be a lot simpler if these interests self-sorted by affectation into town sorted by beliefs. Foolish humans.

The IRS audits might not be political. The IRS has been on a tightened budget, and esp after their targeting of Tea Party groups. Republicans have not been willng to give into their whining that they need more money as long as their biases are so obvious. And, they are far from repentant with the IRS director being held in contempt of Congress and refusing to testify before them. Plus more hard disk destruction this year, again with impunity. So, the IRS has essentially said that most of its audit resources are going towards auditing the rich and almost rich. That is because that is where the money is. If you earn less than, say $100k a year, your chances of a real adit are vanishing small. A couple of percent, if that. If their data matching doesn't kick something out, then you are probably free and clear. By the time you are making a million or so, the chances are that you are like audited every year or two. Trump claims maybe 500x of that, which implies that he will be audited most years, absent political pull against that (which is maybe why the Clintons appear unaudited). When I heard that Trump was audited every year, I was unsurprised. Even a small mistake would likely result in more taxes for the IRS than auditing a number of average taxpayers.

I really don't see why you're so angry chuck. Trump is probably going to lose in the general. All the polling right now has Clinton up nationwide. The most recent three polls on realclearpolitics has her up by either 4 or 5. There was a poll recently that had her up by 11. But for some reason that poll isn't at the site. Dunno why.

Trump's losing will not make me happy, eric. It will make me miserable. It will result in a Supreme Court full of Kagans and Sotomayors. It will fuck up America, seriously, for years.

I just don't want to be blamed for that. I've said all along that Trump is an ignoramus, and an offensive asshole. But those aren't his worst qualities. His worst quality is that he's likely to get beaten like a rented mule in the general. The people who made Trump the Republican nominee ought to be next in line, to be beaten like rented mules.

I do find it interesting that circumstances and information seem so ready to kill Hillary's attack lines. Litigation about Trump U? Well what about the money that State Dept money cycled through that university into Bill Clnton's pockets while his wife was Sec of State? Trump doesn't have the temperament for the job? Well, what about that book getting ready t drop by the former Secret Service agent concerning the last time she lived in the White House? The screaming at Vince Foster right before he (probably) killed himself? Whether the President's SS detail should have been protecting POTUS from physical assaults by his wife? She apparently threw lamps at him, and at least once, he apparently had a shiner as a result of her physical attacks. This is her supposed superior temperament for the job. It will be interesting to see what comes next.

buwaya is 100% correct saying:"This is part of the problem - what you really need to do is turn the tables, not avoid attacks. You fellows have spent the last 20 years being defensive, and IRL this has been an economic and social disaster. The "Movement Conservative" thinkers have thereby lost the people."

@Miriam

Would you find it more acceptable if Trump simply pretended to be hispanic the way Elizabeth Warren pretended to be American-Indian? How about if he feigned an ethnic accent, like Hillary in 2007?

Stick to the facts. Trump called Judge Curiel "a Mexican." That's false. Judge Curiel is not a Mexican. Judge Curiel is a native-born American, and a duly appointed United States District Court Judge. I am not backing down from calling out Trump's blatant falsehood in that regard and you can go fuck yourself.

Tell your Trumpkin internet-fantasy bullshit to somebody who cares. Trump isn't doing any meta-good deeds for American security by falsely maligning a federal judge. And particularly not a federal judge with a personal history in the Department of Justice for putting himself at risk to prosecute southwest drug gangs.

The vast majority of states were created/formed because of the race of the people living in the area. Race was an organizational construct used to help people organize and form communities. That's why liberals love race, they love government. And race gives you an easy way to identify your supporters/voters.

Japan is Japan because it is filled with Japanese. Our country was not formed like that. Yes, we started with people from England. But we quickly added people from France, and Germany, and later Ireland and Italy, and many of the countries of Africa. Not to mention the Indians who were already here!

People in the government have long tried to use race to organize and keep the people in the government in power. I have said, over and over, that the best book on race ever written is Dr. Seuss's The Sneetches, because it captures how arbitrary and silly the whole construct is, and how people can use race to achieve power (while dividing the society in a harmful and ugly way).

I don't dispute that we have an ugly history of race and racism in our culture, including in the Obama years. But part of our cultural identity is to be open to foreigners. We impressed France so much, out of a fit of French passion they gave us the Statue of Liberty for free. Thank you France.

And if Marco Rubio was better at this campaigning stuff, he would have given an awesome speech in front of the Statue of Liberty about our American heritage and our love of immigrants. He failed to do this, so he lost the fight. But it's not immigration that is the problem with the American economy. People who think that are not being logical, they are being emotional (and manipulated by a man who wants power).

Fuck you, grackle. Movement Conservatism hasn't gone the way of accusing Trump of being a "Nazi." And Movement Conservatism has been in the forefront of criticizing the liberal mainstream media for far, far longer than Trump has called himself a Republican.

I viewed Joe Scarborough draw Nazi analogy after Nazi analogy this AM and he used the word, “racist,” many, many times. Scarborough claims to be a conservative. Paul Ryan says Trump’s remarks were a “textbook definition of a racist comment.” Way to criticize “the liberal mainstream,” Paul Ryan! Paul Ryan claims to be a conservative. There are many other examples.

Trump critic (and Buckley in-law) Brent Bozell has made a career out of criticizing the mainstream media.

Movement Conservatism knows exactly what it is like, to be falsely accused of racism. And that one needs to be careful, to avoid giving any room to conservatism's enemies, to make such charges stick.

Ah, yes. Let’s walk on eggshells or else we’ll be branded racist. And if the voters nominate someone we don’t like we’ll happily join up with the MSM/Democrat firing squads, load their rifles, hand them their ammo and finish up by kissing their asses, thankful to be spared the fate of infidels.

Movement Conservatism isn't "agreeing" with the Left. We want to beat the Left. In what I have said all along, going back to almost a year ago, was an eminently winnable election for Republicans. At least it should have been winnable.

Ah, yes. “We want to beat the Left.” But just not in this presidential election. Right? So we spend most of our energy throwing ad hominem, the Nazi label, racist and anything else we can think of at the GOP nominee and those that support him … because “we want to beat the Left.” Rich.

So when Trump says something that really is -- objectively -- indefensible, like criticizing a federal judge on the basis that he has a Hispanic name and is (falsely claimed to be) "Mexican"; then yeah, Trump becomes useless or worse to conservatism and we'll push him away.

Once again, readers, an accusation of racism in regards to the Curiel kerfuffle with nary a quote to back it up. I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees the pattern.

Michael you use "the voters" in a sense that their will is always right, and inviolate.

There are lots of stupid voters. They elected Barack Obama.

I am actually pro-voter on a lot of the tougher issues. I don't want panels of law profs and other worthies picking state appellate judges and supreme court justices. I want voters to do that. I want elected representatives (elected by voters), not blue-ribbon panels, to draw congressional districts.

I am more pro-voter -- on the really hard calls -- than just about anybody you know.

Chuck is showing us in real time why there are only about 30 "Movement Conservatives" left. They checked their brain in at the door when they received their ideology.

They don't want any cultural favoritism in America. That's their ideal. Therefore, La Raza judges must not be called out. But if this judge is biased toward a nationality, you would think Chuck would WANT it called out, to further a colorblind society.

But no. He attacks the white guy pointing it out. Conservatives like Chuck don't mind "minorities" being favoritist as Hell. "Colorblind" for Chuck must mean ignoring racism by anyone of color. Makes a lot more sense then!